Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1887-11-04

mers sppsnzs % b nizong proba
bllily ihal ~ nstiIsmenfo1 - Msths
diai UnigsEsiiy eonfrnYsssy uilI b Dc
isEEsas po@ibly uniEf shs maxi Oenfsr
ense. rs aass axea for shs nssainI
81 ne e0mmfzsian. % whiuh he naiss
ten Of 5 siis for ne Dnsparsity vas rs
fefEe1 b. fAe late Conforence, u De
eRmbeR lsl, nexk, Is whieh tine ~
formal sc1a o. the members nk tie con
mission viii Be cast. TIE commisgien
b compoeed e. f0iiows. The BiEh9pl
residents of DanNer. san Ffan&isco and
Minneapolis; EspaEspds De FoEe and
lie 1curd of Inooma, and DIIloa q Llo,
reg kaland. ana Log Of seattle. Tne
letter Writ1an b. Bishop Foss, e. Nina.
eapolis. % Rev. John Dsniseu, pub.
li1hcd ID geste1dzy'a RcgI- lN1Hz110zH-
vote By loaaeE, and would NOS be pzea
eos - pesson g tee nestinR Of ne
oommfsaiou- II al tia other mnmhosI
q the commission uo1ld ae.and the
mesliua Axed for Deesmbeg La. there
would DO o working majority and the
eommisaion esufd organise and iKans-
aef the Business for which 4 wa1
n oaMn0F ozaAx1zn
Bat 70 isnot uxpscted thn commission
vii oEpanize. Beverends Diiiou and
10y have resolved not 10 attend Tie
nesting q the couminsion. Tits viii
leeve bnf fuo attending members, and
the commission will be anahie 10 organ
ixs. In sheabsenos Of formal orRanf-
zaaion tie vsle Of the commission can
not be formally received or est.
The refusal Of ReFeFends Dillon and
L0y may bring about enc Of two FcsnlhG;
aFst, She whols matter may 60 over till
he next Conferences, % an EFFORT may
Be made 20 secure tbs attend
auae OF &c least two os the Bishops Who
are membeEa Of the commission, In
order that 4 ouoFum may be present.
u ne event Of tie latter sfep being
taken. 4 is uot expectea thet uhen the
Bishops hee5me acquainted with bow
the matter has bsen m9naRed, they VIII
become q conscious party - e1en scnem-
ing. No one ID this city believes fer 9
moment thai any % she Bishops know
or understand the real merits Of lhe
controversy. o. the real ueezs OF The
Puget Sound countEy with respect %
schools. In conffmaticn Of this belief
d the fact, as stated By Allen Weir, at
TIE ednoafi0mal convention, Wednesday
evening, that tuo carefully prepared
reports, ons proceeding from the Board
Of Trade Of Port Townsend, and the
ether from q committee appointed by
q former Conference 70 investigate The
whole subiect, were pigeon holed By the
educational cofnmitEes Of the lste Con-
ference.
an INVESTIGATION LrKzLx
These Fepsrss we're exhaustive In
their statements Of ths merits Of the
claims Of Port Townsend; and the one
Of the eomDittee appointed By former
Conference vas prepared IN obedlence
70 the distinctly expressed desire %
that Conference to be Informed Of the
character and completeness Of the per
foFmanos By Port Townsend citizens Of
the conditions upon watch that place
would be selected as the site for the
proposed University. Il 10 believed that
had those reports bean read to the lasi
Conferences. there would have been nc
opportunity given 20 membeFs favor
Inc q different site to argue 50 piausibly
against Port Townsend. This Is the
view taken By Allen Weir, Who also
SAYS that be might have been able 70
couHseFaot the effect Of the suppression
OF those reports bad be bssn permitted
10 address the Conference. This, be
says, be vas not permitted 70 DO.
The expectations, therefore. OF tee
Port Townsend peoPls Is that when the
Bishop residents Of San Francisco,
DsnveF and Minneapolis. members Of
tbs commission, lesrn Of these facts
thsy win either withdraw their written
vote for the present, OF insist uPon
careful Investigation OF tho whole con-
tfoversy.